How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[goldisheavy]

Actually one of the pre-requisites for attaining the jalus is for the sake of all sentient beings.

 

If you believe this, you've been mislead. Mostly it's a trick (skillful means) to make letting go of humanity easier. If you think you're letting go of humanity for the sake of humanity, it's easier to do it when you come from the position of having previously loved humanity a great deal. Once your experience conforms to the rainbow body, you'll not likely appear among real humans again (unless of course you give up your rainbow body attainment).

 

 

No, what I meant was that the reasons for my confidence is due to lineage beyond myself.

 

Wrong. Your confidence is completely inborn, but you are externalizing it in a projection right now. In other words, you fail to take responsibility for your confidence. You think your confidence is inspired by something externally real, something to which it is OK to cling, something that's OK to be sentimental about, and so on. You believe this gives you all the necessary justifications to be confident.

 

The realizations of those that have come before me that I can depend upon to help guide me, both through practice and conceptual elaboration.

 

You don't need guidance. You already know what's up. You're just a chicken.

 

It was a metaphor. While your confidence comes only from your own private bag of blind tricks you tell yourself is truth. You look at a master, and criticize without direct insight. Damning that which offers you help.

 

I do have direct insight and you know it. Masters offer bondage and not help.

 

Nah... I know what I'm talking about. You on the other hand do not. You stand alone, not supported by the mahasiddhas that have come before you even considered spirituality.

 

I don't know if it's accurate to say that I stand completely alone, but I *can* stand alone when necessary, including right now. Mahasiddhas are just so much baggage and spiritual flash.

 

Sure, if acted on without wisdom.

 

 

 

 

This right here magnifies for me the assumptive quality in your intellectual musings. I don't have to defend my teachers. They have enough enlightened students and real teachings going around with far more merit in this moment than you could muster in your whole life thus far. I do just want to offer a different perspective from your own as you cause harm steering people away from true lineages and real techniques beyond this intellectual concept pushing that you do. But, I do try to help you get over yourself, but as you might be too far gone, at least some others can read these refutations of your self proclaimed nonsense and get something from them.

 

Don't you know the difference between refutation and insult? You're shooting blanks, Bob.

 

Please if you want to really learn how to manifest the body of light and if you really want to learn about Rigpa people. Go to true masters like this... Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche Who's two direct teachers attain the Jalus (body of light) as genuine proof of the validity of his teaching lineage. Steer away from new age lineage damning pundits like GIH if you want something more than a nice discussion online.

 

Cool. You agree talking with me is nice. Very good.

[goldisheavy]

More relatively real than your truck load of manure.

 

OK, fine. Your manure smells better than my manure and you have more of it as well. But it is still manure.

 

How can nothing be physical?

 

Because thinking that phenomena are physical is an error in judgement.

 

Nothing is nothing. But, I know what you mean. Everything is physical, and everything is also not physical as well. Simultaneousness!

 

Nope. That's not what I mean. There is nothing physical. For example, this computer I am typing on is a vision, a dream. It's not physical. It's not made of actual atoms. It's made of dream atoms. Etc.

 

No.

 

Yes. A famous one, post attainment.

 

What have you seen exactly?

 

I don't say rigpa is physical, I'm saying it includes the physical,

 

Rigpa includes the physical in the same sense that rigpa includes marigpa. It also includes the physical in the same sense that rabbits include antlers, clouds include mushrooms and blind people include visions of rainbows.

 

if you would have actually read what I stated instead of assumed anything like you have above. You really don't know me, nor the depth of my realization. You are quite ignorant to me dear brother, you need help. Genuine help. I've seen far more than you can realize right now based upon the lack of your vision.

 

When people need help, they ask for it. If you go around offering help to those who don't want it, then it is you who needs help.

 

It's hypocritical to criticize lineages that have actually attained something you have no idea about, and say that you can teach the same.

 

Except I do have an idea about their attainments. I know what they have attained.

 

You are a baboon, swinging from a tree, thinking he has in his hand something more than a tree trunk.

 

This is why lineages are bad. Your behavior is proof positive that lineages offer no benefit.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I think what you may not be seeing here is that this "something" you are investigating with is not a controller or background.

 

For instance, you investigate using thoughts. When we speak, we say "I did this, I did that." So this creates this idea of separation between the "I" and the "doing." There is an "I" which is controlling the doing -- which is separate from it. But is that "I" really a background/controller?

 

In other words, is this investigation controlled by a permanent "I" or is the investigation just a series of impermanent thoughts?

Yes and you realize that by objectifying that investigative process. You conclude there is no controller by saying, "look, there is this process of me thinking and no controller."

 

This way of investigating assumes first that there is duality of subject and object like you say, which is the wrong way to look at experience in the first place. It's an extreme way to view things, so logical conclusion from it won't make practical sense.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

investigation does not require investigator

 

In seeing there is just the seen, in hearing there is just the heard.

Seeing is, no seer. Hearing is, no hearer.

Seeing is the seen, hearing is the heard.

Deeds are done, no doer.

In order to convince yourself of this, you objectify the occurring world as part of another whole. This is seeing the absence of subject by just saying everything is object.

 

contemplating the non-locality of things leads to emptiness of object

To contemplate the non-locality of objects you subtly allow a subjective mind to evaluate the supposed objective experiences. And quickly revert to above reasoning for anatta to do away with that subjective mind as another object.

 

There's something very flawed about this, like seeing a box of with one side blue and the other side yellow and concluding that there can be no such thing and throwing out the box altogether.

 

These methods are ways of understanding reality and one shouldn't derive reality's nature from extreme conclusions from it.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[ralis]

Yes, but unlike you, who thinks himself the wisest of the wise, the super guru who will bring down all dogmatic systems of thought in the world while much like Krishnamurti, will not proclaim himself to be a guru and say not to go get transmissions from real lineage guru's, but to listen to him instead. Meanwhile will be absolutely unaware of his own inner dogmas concerning reality.

 

I am more interested in how the Indian born Buddhadharma transfers itself into the West. To do so, would mean being very nuanced and scholarly in how I use English to define terms which originally appear in Sanskrit.

 

For instance, all these concepts of "universal consciousness" that came about in the 60's and 70's comes in a large part from the popularization of Eastern Philosophy in the West with the simultaneous popularization of mind expanding substances like acid, mushrooms, peyote, etc. Concepts of Krishna Consciousness from ISKON and applying it to Christ (consciousness) as well as Trungpa and Muktananda, and plenty of others including Yogananda's troupe. Also others from a far more Taoist persuasion, plenty inspired as such by Bruce Lee. Before this, plenty of people would not have even had a concept of Cosmic Consciousness, as this word really didn't exist as an English colloquialism until it was translated from Eastern terms such as Brahman, Tao, and mistranslations of the term Tathagatagarbha with people of those days thinking that Buddhanature means the same thing as Brahman and Tao.

 

It's just sloppy scholarship leading to sloppy understanding and interpretation of experiences which would not have even been recognized if it wasn't for the above mentioned movement of Eastern philosophy from it's origin to the West in storm.

 

Not saying the experience is due to these concepts in whole, but only due to a large part.

 

Also, Buddhism is not concerned with an ultimate experience, but rather an ultimate insight into the nature of experience, which is a different approach from Monistic Idealism (Vedanta, Shaivism, etc.). Therefore the term, "awareness" in English will be used differently for a Buddhist, than for a Hindu just like it does in Sanskrit.

 

 

I don't need a history lesson and I certainty don't care for your condescending attitude. Further, you are not a scholar, so don't pretend to be one! Scholars work by a set of principles that are defined by their field of study.

 

 

Also, Buddhism is not concerned with an ultimate experience, but rather an ultimate insight into the nature of experience

 

 

You should reconsider this statement. Your narrative would state otherwise.

[ralis]

I see this all as an excuse not to learn more and to stay conditioned by limited views of English concepts.

 

 

 

English is limited? Sanskrit is not? All languages, including mathematics are limited and only are approximations of reality. Language is not the object itself. GIH is right. You do have a Sanskrit fetish.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I do not rely on beliefs. I have realized and directly seen this to be so (seeing is just seen, hearing is just heard). "Is" does not apply to awareness or subject. I do not mean there is something heard, but it is just the self-evident clarity of appearances that the label "awareness" refer to, like the word "weather", but there is no subjective self or inherency to "awareness".

in seeing just the seen, means there is no seer, whereas "seen" too is simply a convention for self-luminous unlocatable d.o. And empty appearance/display like weather. To say "there is just a display" does not imply the display must be inherently there, it could simply a tv show, a dream, etc but that there is no agent seeing the display is true.

It doesn't matter how appearance-like reality appears. You are still seeing it as an objective reality of some universal process happening as (conventional) you. No matter how d.o.ing or what not. There is no self evident wisdom in things that arise. The "seen" does not see dependent origination. Something dependently originated cannot see directly its origination. It can only do this through speculation.

 

A baby cannot directly realize his coming into birth from non-birth (if we assume that people are originated at birth). it can only learn this after he is born.

 

First we realize "weather" is an empty name, doesn't refer to some permanent independent entity apart from that process of clouds, rain, lightning etc, then the next step we realize clouds, rain, lightning etc is also just as empty and ungraspable as "weather".

 

Step one does not contradict step two, its like 1) there is no weather 2) weather is just a convention for appearances 3) appearances are empty

 

Step 2 does not reify phenomena, step 3 does not reify subject. They are absolutely consistent and complements each other.

Your weather example does not hold because weather is not alive and doing the investigation. Your looking at your mind as if it were a thing and this is a faulty assumption to begin an inquiry with.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

In order to convince yourself of this, you objectify the occurring world as part of another whole. This is seeing the absence of subject by just saying everything is object.

like I said, there is no objectification at all.

 

If you say there is no river apart from flowing, no wind apart from blowing, no awareness apart from the process of knowing, how is it objectification?

 

It is only reification when you say there is an entity river somewhere behind the flowing, a 'wind' behind blowing, a 'hearer' behind hearing, etc.

 

Anatta leaves you with non-conceptual unreified experiencing.

 

 

To contemplate the non-locality of objects you subtly allow a subjective mind to evaluate the supposed objective experiences.

your statement does not make sense. Just because there is investigation means there is investigator? That is your inference and assumption. There is just seeing without seer. Investigating without investigator. Observing without observer.

 

And quickly revert to above reasoning for anatta to do away with that subjective mind as another object.

there is no reasoning involved. This is not analytical meditation. This is direct experiential contemplation that leads to a direct experiential realization and not just an intellectual conviction. Edited July 18, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

It doesn't matter how appearance-like reality appears. You are still seeing it as an objective reality of some universal process happening as (conventional) you.

what is convention has no (inherent) reality

 

No matter how d.o.ing or what not. There is no self evident wisdom in things that arise. The "seen" does not see dependent origination. Something dependently originated cannot see directly its origination. It can only do this through speculation.

you basically think, objects cannot see, only subject can see.

 

I basically say, there is no subject or object, because the seen is the seeing and the seeing is the seen, just like wind is the blowing and the blowing is wind instead of "wind behind blowing", so it is flat.

 

What this translates to is that d.o. Is self-evident in what is seen. You directly see how the stick, hitting, air, hitter, is interconnected with this sound. Without reifying whatever I said conventionally as objective things (like I said, total relativity breaks down entity-view).

 

A baby cannot directly realize his coming into birth from non-birth (if we assume that people are originated at birth). it can only learn this after he is born.

Actually you don't need to know the past to see in direct experience what d.o. Is in its immediacy. But you also should not deny the past and even past lives. That would necessitate recalling and even past life remembering, yes.

 

Your weather example does not hold because weather is not alive and doing the investigation. Your looking at your mind as if it were a thing and this is a faulty assumption to begin an inquiry with.

you are just assuming that the example does not hold whereas in actuality it does, if you have truly contemplated and realized anatta. And you are assuming aliveness to be a subject behind investigation.

 

Mind is not a thing nor is mind a subject, mind is an ungraspable process and "there is" and "is not" does not apply as there is no mind-ness of mind anywhere, just like there is no wind-ness of wind, river-ness of river, car-ness of car or weather-ness of weather... Or a windness behind blowing, riverness behind flowing, awareness behind awaring, mindness behind knowing, seer behind seeing, hearer behind knowing. Even though there is no mindness I have not denied unreified, luminous and spontaneous experience - an ungraspable mindstream.

 

A self-luninous ungraspable process of eighteen dhatus is all there is, and not even that "is" as it is utterly d.o., empty, unlocatable and ungraspable. Definitely no "one mind" or "brahman" of hinduism.

 

 

P.s. You are the one steering to extremes by subsuming objects into a subjective one-mind. Whereas I do not assert the reality of subject or object.

Edited July 18, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

like I said, there is no objectification at all.

 

If you say there is no river apart from flowing, no wind apart from blowing, no awareness apart from the process of knowing, how is it objectification?

Good, so the whole things is river. And the whole thing is blowing.

 

It is only reification when you say there is an entity river somewhere behind the flowing, a 'wind' behind blowing, a 'hearer' behind hearing, etc.

 

Anatta leaves you with non-conceptual unreified experiencing.

I'm not saying anything. I'm just pointing out certain flaws in your inquiry.

 

your statement does not make sense. Just because there is investigation means there is investigator? That is your inference and assumption. There is just seeing without seer. Investigating without investigator. Observing without observer.

Yes. In order to investigate A or B, something must be able to contain the two thoughts to compare or establish a relationship with. If there is only A to B and a disconnect, neither would be aware of one another. This is what seeing is never just the seen. Seen and the heard would not know each other at all. Why do you keep thinking I'm supposing an entity? I'm not doing that.

 

there is no reasoning involved. This is not analytical meditation. This is direct experiential contemplation that leads to a direct experiential realization and not just an intellectual conviction.

Yes and I'm saying that direct contemplation is just another flawed perception held on to.

[Lucky7Strikes]

what is convention has no (inherent) reality

Your ultimate denies the experience of the relative. It makes you in denial of experience due to false reasoning.

 

you basically think, objects cannot see, only subject can see.

It's better than saying objects see.

 

I basically say, there is no subject or object, because the seen is the seeing and the seeing is the seen, just like wind is the blowing and the blowing is wind instead of "wind behind blowing", so it is flat.

That's because you think subject has to be some "thing." This approach is already assuming the duality of subject and object, hence your analysis of them is prone to be wrong. Is space a "thing"? No, but it exists and encompasses and contains things. It would be extreme as you say to say there is this separate space that is behind objects. But it is also extreme to say there is no such thing as space or that all is space or all there is are objects. Your case is even more ridiculous. You are cutting space into "things" and saying there is space here, then there, then there. So one concludes there is no such thing as space but separate objects.

 

Similar to time.

 

What this translates to is that d.o. Is self-evident in what is seen. You directly see how the stick, hitting, air, hitter, is interconnected with this sound. Without reifying whatever I said conventionally as objective things (like I said, total relativity breaks down entity-view).

 

Actually you don't need to know the past to see in direct experience what d.o. Is in its immediacy. But you also should not deny the past and even past lives. That would necessitate recalling and even past life remembering, yes.

Yes, YOU directly see it. Or are you going to say that somehow this sound is aware of itself?

 

you are just assuming that the example does not hold whereas in actuality it does, if you have truly contemplated and realized anatta. And you are assuming aliveness to be a subject behind investigation.

Yes I am. If you are not alive, you can't investigate. Unless you are denying awareness...with awareness.

 

Mind is not a thing nor is mind a subject, mind is an ungraspable process and "there is" and "is not" does not apply as there is no mind-ness of mind anywhere, just like there is no wind-ness of wind, river-ness of river, car-ness of car or weather-ness of weather... Or a windness behind blowing, riverness behind flowing, awareness behind awaring, mindness behind knowing, seer behind seeing, hearer behind knowing. Even though there is no mindness I have not denied unreified, luminous and spontaneous experience - an ungraspable mindstream.

 

A self-luninous ungraspable process of eighteen dhatus is all there is, and not even that "is" as it is utterly d.o., empty, unlocatable and ungraspable. Definitely no "one mind" or "brahman" of hinduism.

 

 

P.s. You are the one steering to extremes by subsuming objects into a subjective one-mind. Whereas I do not assert the reality of subject or object.

Yes, if there is no mindness why aren't you denying the mindstream? You can't because that's your experience. Your logic is at odds with your experience: magic!

 

I am trying to say awareness/mind might not be some "thing" and investigating it as such is an error.

 

Let me understand this clearly. The process is self aware. Is there something that flows through the eighteen dhatus, or are they separate. It seems like you are saying they are separate. That would mean you would have eighteen different awarenesses. If they are causal, they would have to be linked, and the line we draw between cause and effect would be arbitrary to the mind.

 

If you say they are not separate, the mindstream would be whole. And that's what I think is the right way. That the mindstream is indeed like an infinite ocean, but we only see it as a bounded stream.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

Yes and you realize that by objectifying that investigative process. You conclude there is no controller by saying, "look, there is this process of me thinking and no controller."

 

This way of investigating assumes first that there is duality of subject and object like you say, which is the wrong way to look at experience in the first place. It's an extreme way to view things, so logical conclusion from it won't make practical sense.

When I say there is "me thinking", that is just a thought. There is not a "me" and thought, which is what you are assuming. There is just the thought "I am thinking."

 

It's the difference between seeing the content of thoughts, which is dual, and seeing the way thoughts manifest. Which is non-dual. I think you're too focused on the former.

Edited July 18, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

When I say there is "me thinking", that is just a thought. There is not a "me" and thought, which is what you are assuming. There is just the thought "I am thinking."

 

It's the difference between seeing the content of thoughts, which is dual, and seeing the way thoughts manifest. Which is non-dual. I think you're too focused on the former.

No that's not what I meant. I meant thinking. Does thinking see thinking? Does sound hear sound? That would mean sound is aware. (You would blast music and awareness would drift as the soundwaves) Or mental processes are aware in themselves. Where does a thought begin and end? You would be all these chopped up awarenesses and have no connection between tasting and hearing. No memory would be established or a sense of being.

 

You may conclude that from such reasoning that objectifies that moment of thought to itself, and go, "look, there is just these disparate moments of thought, me moving, jus things arising spontaneously." And the critical juncture during this inquiry is the realization that that very thought ("look, there is just these disparate...") itself is also another rising. And one falsely thinks this is the nature of reality when really you are just impersonally experiencing things as they rise because they are objectified. This is what you call "no-self realization."

 

This is just another way of experiencing reality and I have no problem with that. It's spontaneous and liberating, a great way to practice and let go of grasping for me/mine mental habits.

 

But the Buddhadharma says the objects are empty also. So you inquire into thoughts, movement, phenomena, and conclude there are no inherent separation or identity to them. However, here you are missing a critical flaw in the process, because in order to investigate various arisings, they must be contained, connected, or somehow perceived in their totality. You are stepping out of the "just this arising" understanding in order to see the relationship between multiple arisings. And to justify this process, you say afterwards, "oh, that was just another arising." There is no such thing as "just arising" inquiry. Inquiry demands connection, division, multiplicity, memory, reflection. It is a fluid process.

 

So it's like you have a loop of justification. So you come to a nonsensical conclusion that, well, it's just like magic. As a crude example this is like a man looking for his eyes and seeing objects and not his eyes concludes that objects "see" themselves. And to see whether objects really exist or not, he closes his eye and sees darkness. So he concludes objects are not really there either. He doesn't understand that this whole thing just happens in his seeing-nature and denies his seeing entirely.

 

You can deny everything in the world, but not awareness. Because that final denial happens in awareness. Nor does it make sense to say awareness belongs to arising of disparate moments. Not does it make sense to say one can directly know that awareness comes from something else (that can only be speculated as scientists attribute it to the brain).

 

You can say awareness dependently originates, but only in the sense that a ball bounces. The fact that the ball bounces does not deny the ball. That would be stupid. Dependent origination is just how this dimension of awareness works.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

We can do this the other way around. Have all your so-called "masters" come to me and see what I have to say about all their posturing, anti-intellectualism and secret-keeping.

 

 

They're not anti-intellectual. They just don't see it as ultimate either. They also aren't secret keeping in the sense that you are projecting. Not the ones that I like.

 

Nonsense.

 

Nope.

 

 

 

You're trying to situate me within the framework of Buddhism. You're failing. The reason for your repeated failure is that my wisdom is my own and I like Buddhism not because I learn from it, but only because it most closely resembles my own innate wisdom. Do you understand?

 

Please yourself. You can't make absolutist comments on religions that you don't fully know about or have incomplete realization according to there texts and Masters and not be challenged. My understanding of Hinduism is challenged all the time here, it's fun!

Edited July 18, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[thuscomeone]

No that's not what I meant. I meant thinking. Does thinking see thinking? Does sound hear sound? That would mean sound is aware. (You would blast music and awareness would drift as the soundwaves) Or mental processes are aware in themselves. Where does a thought begin and end? You would be all these chopped up awarenesses and have no connection between tasting and hearing. No memory would be established or a sense of being.

 

You may conclude that from such reasoning that objectifies that moment of thought to itself, and go, "look, there is just these disparate moments of thought, me moving, jus things arising spontaneously." And the critical juncture during this inquiry is the realization that that very thought ("look, there is just these disparate...") itself is also another rising. And one falsely thinks this is the nature of reality when really you are just impersonally experiencing things as they rise because they are objectified. This is what you call "no-self realization."

 

This is just another way of experiencing reality and I have no problem with that. It's spontaneous and liberating, a great way to practice and let go of grasping for me/mine mental habits.

 

But the Buddhadharma says the objects are empty also. So you inquire into thoughts, movement, phenomena, and conclude there are no inherent separation or identity to them. However, here you are missing a critical flaw in the process, because in order to investigate various arisings, they must be contained, connected, or somehow perceived in their totality. You are stepping out of the "just this arising" understanding in order to see the relationship between multiple arisings. And to justify this process, you say afterwards, "oh, that was just another arising." There is no such thing as "just arising" inquiry. Inquiry demands connection, division, multiplicity, memory, reflection. It is a fluid process.

 

So it's like you have a loop of justification. So you come to a nonsensical conclusion that, well, it's just like magic.

 

You can deny everything in the world, but not awareness. Because that final denial happens in awareness. Nor does it make sense to say awareness belongs to arising of disparate moments. Not does it make sense to say one can directly know that awareness comes from something else (that can only be speculated as scientists attribute it to the brain).

 

You can say awareness dependently originates, but only in the sense that a ball bounces. The fact that the ball bounces does not deny the ball. That would be stupid. Dependent origination is just how this dimension of awareness works.

I'm not saying there is no division. Conventionally there is. Logic requires division, of course. Logic is a tool. Nothing more. It allows us to distinguish right from wrong. It's only through division that we see non-division. That we can distinguish division from non-division, ignorance from wisdom. But don't mistake the finger for the moon.

Edited July 18, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

If you believe this, you've been mislead. Mostly it's a trick (skillful means) to make letting go of humanity easier. If you think you're letting go of humanity for the sake of humanity, it's easier to do it when you come from the position of having previously loved humanity a great deal. Once your experience conforms to the rainbow body, you'll not likely appear among real humans again (unless of course you give up your rainbow body attainment).

 

Actually the Rainbow body makes it easier for a Buddha to interact with those without the merit to communicate with Buddhas in the Sambhogakaya. Also, just because one has attained the Rainbow Body, doesn't mean one can't still project incarnations of enlightened physical activity, such is the case with Norbu.

 

Also, in order to attain the Rainbow Body, one must see through both real and unreal. It's the middle way, remember? Beings neither exist, nor do not exist.

 

 

Wrong. Your confidence is completely inborn, but you are externalizing it in a projection right now. In other words, you fail to take responsibility for your confidence. You think your confidence is inspired by something externally real, something to which it is OK to cling, something that's OK to be sentimental about, and so on. You believe this gives you all the necessary justifications to be confident.

 

Beings are neither real nor not real, this goes with my lineages.

 

Your confidence is entirely inborn, without support from true Master Buddhas who have gone before you, thus it's more like a mirage that you tell yourself is reflective of total realization without actually having it.

 

You don't need guidance. You already know what's up. You're just a chicken.

 

You need guidance, you don't really know what's up, but you're just too chicken to bow to a real Master in utter self offering humility.

I do have direct insight and you know it. Masters offer bondage and not help.

 

Sure, you have insight, but not Buddhahood, nor are you qualified enough to teach what you haven't received, such as Dzogchen or Mahamudra teachings. This is where you faulted and this is where you do a great disservice. Telling people to listen to you over going to a genuine Master with lineage that has actually attained the Rainbow Body, with practices that actually work for it's realization of complete Buddhahood and physical integration.

 

So you claim to be a Master without the credentials, basically.

 

I don't know if it's accurate to say that I stand completely alone, but I *can* stand alone when necessary, including right now. Mahasiddhas are just so much baggage and spiritual flash.

 

[Informer]

What does dogma mean to you?

 

For me, considering all things as one ultimate thing, is a dogma.

 

Any form of identity that one attaches to as self, either conceptual, or non-conceptual, is a dogma for me.

 

Nope the universe as a whole is not dogmatic . . .

 

 

 

That would be subjective idealism, not recognizing interdependent origination/emptiness.

 

It all depends upon how you define liberation. If you think it's just a good inside feeling, then that would not be insight into the nature of self as inter-dependent, but rather that subjective experience is idealized as ultimate. Which it is to a degree, otherwise you wouldn't have the capacity to discern between what increases and deepens insightful joy and what does not, but what gave you the possibility to have this experience to begin with?

 

Can you please re-formulate the question. Becuae this can mean different things and it is unclear as to what you are asking . .

 

It sounds like you are assuming to know the unknowable, most likely through a dogma . . Do you understand what Dogma is?

Edited July 18, 2011 by Informer

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Because thinking that phenomena are physical is an error in judgement.

 

phenomena neither physical, nor non-physical.

 

Nope. That's not what I mean. There is nothing physical. For example, this computer I am typing on is a vision, a dream. It's not physical. It's not made of actual atoms. It's made of dream atoms. Etc.

 

Like a dream, not really a dream.

 

 

What have you seen exactly?

 

Experienced my own body dissolving into rainbow light, it was a bit scary at first and I could feel the death process setting on, then Ganesh sat on my chest, held me down and turned into Rinpoche, repeated a mantra then disappeared and my physical constituents coagulated (sort of speak) again into physically felt peace and calm. It was quite astounding. Many, many other things have happened as well to show me the validity of the Jalus. This was just while laying in bed I had many other visions while in between waking and dreaming. Stuff like this happened many times for the first few years after my first transmission from Norbu in order to show me various direct insights about the tradition of Dzogchen that is both unique and beautiful.

 

During a Jnana Dakini transmission, a female Buddha of the Dzogchen tradition:

Making sense of Tantra: Berzin Archives.

"Because the audience for Buddha's teachings consisted of a variety of beings, not only humans, some of them safeguarded material for later, more conducive times. For example, the half-human half-serpent nagas preserved The Prajnaparamita Sutras in their subterranean kingdom beneath a lake until the Indian master Nagarjuna came to retrieve them. Jnana Dakini, a supranormal female adept, kept The Vajrabhairava Tantra in Oddiyana until the Indian master Lalitavajra journeyed there on the advice of a pure vision of Manjushri. Moreover, both Indian and Tibetan masters hid scriptures for safekeeping in physical locations or implanted them as potentials in special disciples' minds. Later generations of masters uncovered them as treasure-texts (terma, gter-ma). Asanga, for example, buried Maitreya's Furthest Everlasting Continuum, and the Indian master Maitripa unearthed it many centuries later. Padmasambhava concealed innumerable tantra texts in Tibet, which subsequent Nyingma masters discovered in the recesses of temples or in their own minds."

 

Anyway, I saw her in the room, my third eye filled with blissful light, she was just made of light and smiling, such bliss and wonder. It was very nice. Norbu said after the transmission that it's possible to see Jhana Dakini, as a confirmation of this experience.

 

Rigpa includes the physical in the same sense that rigpa includes marigpa. It also includes the physical in the same sense that rabbits include antlers, clouds include mushrooms and blind people include visions of rainbows.

 

Sure, but it's more nuanced than that. Have you read Norbu's Kunjed Gyalpo?

 

Except I do have an idea about their attainments. I know what they have attained.

 

You only have an idea, but you don't know directly.

 

This is why lineages are bad. Your behavior is proof positive that lineages offer no benefit.

 

Your lack of humility reveals that lineage can offer far more than you.

[Vajrahridaya]

Nope the universe as a whole is not dogmatic . . .

 

Actually, there are rules concerning it's manifestations. All it's manifestations are inter-dependent and not independent. They are all empty of inherent existence, and without static essence.

 

Knowing these rules directly, one can be more flexible within this universe and not be as limited by the physical body.

 

If there are no dogmas about the universe informer, please sprout wings and fly over here right now. I live in Oakville, Ontario.

 

 

 

Can you please re-formulate the question. Becuae this can mean different things and it is unclear as to what you are asking . .

 

What is the primal cause for your ability to be?

 

It sounds like you are assuming to know the unknowable, most likely through a dogma . . Do you understand what Dogma is?

 

There are different forms of dogmas. Mental, religious, political, social.

 

None the less, the cosmos works in a certain way. There is nothing unknowable, just some things take more time to know than others. Your body right now, is connected to everything that ever was and ever will be, so, through deepening awareness of this, you can in fact directly experience various things beyond the perceived limits of your body while at the same time being limited by your body, because well, the universe is dogmatic because of the collected notions of beginning-less sentient beings co-manifesting this apparently dense reality.

 

Have you flown over here yet? How about teleport? If the universe is so non-dogmatic, you should be able to teleport over here right now!

[Lucky7Strikes]

I'm not saying there is no division. Conventionally there is. Logic requires division, of course. Logic is a tool. Nothing more. It allows us to distinguish right from wrong. It's only through division that we see non-division. That we can distinguish division from non-division, ignorance from wisdom. But don't mistake the finger for the moon.

You also see non-division through division. It's in this very reply. "Distinguish division from non-division." Distinguish is a divisive word and view.

 

*I don't think this much of a thoughtful reply to all that I wrote .

Edited July 18, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Informer]

Actually, there are rules concerning it's manifestations. All it's manifestations are inter-dependent and not independent. They are all empty of inherent existence, and without static essence.

 

Knowing these rules directly, one can be more flexible within this universe and not be as limited by the physical body.

 

If there are no dogmas about the universe informer, please sprout wings and fly over here right now. I live in Oakville, Ontario.

 

 

 

 

What is the primal cause for your ability to be?

 

 

 

There are different forms of dogmas. Mental, religious, political, social.

 

None the less, the cosmos works in a certain way. There is nothing unknowable, just some things take more time to know than others. Your body right now, is connected to everything that ever was and ever will be, so, through deepening awareness of this, you can in fact directly experience various things beyond the perceived limits of your body while at the same time being limited by your body, because well, the universe is dogmatic because of the collected notions of beginning-less sentient beings co-manifesting this apparently dense reality.

 

Have you flown over here yet? How about teleport? If the universe is so non-dogmatic, you should be able to teleport over here right now!

 

You aren't making sense to me, sorry! There are things that you don't know, yet have faith in anyways.

[Vajrahridaya]

English is limited? Sanskrit is not? All languages, including mathematics are limited and only are approximations of reality. Language is not the object itself. GIH is right. You do have a Sanskrit fetish.

 

You don't read very well before emotionally pouncing on me, it's a habit of yours to do this. If you backtrack through the posts, I did say that Sanskrit is not perfect, but it's more nuanced than English. I never said it's unlimited, just less limited than English.

[Vajrahridaya]

You should reconsider this statement. Your narrative would state otherwise.

 

You haven't read my narrative very well then. I've stated this over and over again since I got here.

[goldisheavy]

No that's not what I meant. I meant thinking. Does thinking see thinking? Does sound hear sound? That would mean sound is aware. (You would blast music and awareness would drift as the soundwaves) Or mental processes are aware in themselves. Where does a thought begin and end? You would be all these chopped up awarenesses and have no connection between tasting and hearing. No memory would be established or a sense of being.

 

You may conclude that from such reasoning that objectifies that moment of thought to itself, and go, "look, there is just these disparate moments of thought, me moving, jus things arising spontaneously." And the critical juncture during this inquiry is the realization that that very thought ("look, there is just these disparate...") itself is also another rising. And one falsely thinks this is the nature of reality when really you are just impersonally experiencing things as they rise because they are objectified. This is what you call "no-self realization."

 

This is just another way of experiencing reality and I have no problem with that. It's spontaneous and liberating, a great way to practice and let go of grasping for me/mine mental habits.

 

But the Buddhadharma says the objects are empty also. So you inquire into thoughts, movement, phenomena, and conclude there are no inherent separation or identity to them. However, here you are missing a critical flaw in the process, because in order to investigate various arisings, they must be contained, connected, or somehow perceived in their totality. You are stepping out of the "just this arising" understanding in order to see the relationship between multiple arisings. And to justify this process, you say afterwards, "oh, that was just another arising." There is no such thing as "just arising" inquiry. Inquiry demands connection, division, multiplicity, memory, reflection. It is a fluid process.

 

So it's like you have a loop of justification. So you come to a nonsensical conclusion that, well, it's just like magic. As a crude example this is like a man looking for his eyes and seeing objects and not his eyes concludes that objects "see" themselves. And to see whether objects really exist or not, he closes his eye and sees darkness. So he concludes objects are not really there either. He doesn't understand that this whole thing just happens in his seeing-nature and denies his seeing entirely.

 

You can deny everything in the world, but not awareness. Because that final denial happens in awareness. Nor does it make sense to say awareness belongs to arising of disparate moments. Not does it make sense to say one can directly know that awareness comes from something else (that can only be speculated as scientists attribute it to the brain).

 

You can say awareness dependently originates, but only in the sense that a ball bounces. The fact that the ball bounces does not deny the ball. That would be stupid. Dependent origination is just how this dimension of awareness works.

 

This is a brilliant explanation. Many bows to you Lucky.

[Vajrahridaya]

You aren't making sense to me, sorry! There are things that you don't know, yet have faith in anyways.

 

No, I don't have blind faith. What I was just saying to you is, don't be so sure that what you don't know, you can't know through further self analysis and meditative insight. That is all.